People v. Pigrenet
| Decision Date | 30 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36914,36914 |
| Citation | 26 Ill.2d 224,186 N.E.2d 306 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph PIGRENET, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Clemens Hufmann, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
Defendant, Joseph Pigrenet, was found guilty of unlawfully possessing narcotic drugs after a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than three nor more than five years. He prosecutes this writ of error contending solely that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. In particular, defendant insists that a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics requires affirmative evidence that the accused knows he has narcotics in his possession and contends that such proof was lacking in this case.
Relevant evidence shows that Aldo J. Palma, a Federal narcotics agent, on June 15, 1959, about 5:45 P.M., met with agents Lambert, DeMorest, and Emrich and a special employee, George DeLuna, at Sangamon and Washington Streets in Chicago. After a short conference DeLuna left and Palma followed him to Ralph's Tavern, located on Madison Street east of Morgan Street, where DeLuna entered. As Palma walked by the tavern he saw DeLuna and defendant standing near the bar and, ten minutes later, he observed the two men leave the tavern and walk to the corner of Madison and Morgan where they separated. Defendant then went into a place called Harry's Restaurant and, after remaining there for twenty minutes, walked south on Morgan Street. Palma did not follow but remained in the vicinity.
At approximately 6:45 P.M., Palma saw the special employee, DeLuna (who did not testify at the trial), walk into an alley immediately south of Madison Street. He was followed by another man, one Corow, who was unknown to the agent. Palma himself walked into the alley where he saw DeLuna approaching the defendant. When Palma called out: 'What is going on here?', defendant did not respond but dropped four foil wrapped packages to the ground which were subsequently found to contain heroin. The agent then placed defendant under arrest but Corow ran from the alley.
After the arrest, Palma and his fellow agents took defendant to their office, where he was finger printed and interrogated. According to Palma's testimony, he inquired: 'This your stuff?' and defendant replied 'Yes.' When asked: 'What were you going to do with it?', defendant answered: 'I was going to give it to the fellow who ran out of the alley.' Palma added that defendant volunteered to cooperate with the agents, but that he refused such aid, saying: 'No, we have got you with the goods on you.', whereupon defendant replied: 'That is right.' When asked whether he wished to make a signed statement the accused said: , and did not sign a statement.
Agent Lambert corroborated Palma in material respects. He testified that he had seen defendant, DeLuna, Corow and Palma enter the alley shortly after 6:35 P.M., and that he had arrested Corow as the latter ran from the alley a few minutes after Palma had entered. In detailing the events and conversations at the bureau after defendant's arrest Lambert said defendant had stated:
It was stipulated that the chemist who analyzed the contents of the four packages dropped in the alley would testify, if called, that they contained heroin hydrochloride.
For the defense, the defendant, while admitting that he had seen DeLuna twice during the evening in question, denied possession of the packets of heroin, or that he had made the statements attributed to him by the agents, and testified that he had gone into the alley to have a drink with an acquaintance.
In order to support a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, the prosecution must establish the defendant's knowledge of the presence of narcotics and his immediate and exclusive control of them. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodson v. Com., 0743-90-2
... ... (quoting People v. Pigrenet, 26 Ill.2d 224, 227, 186 N.E.2d 306, 308 (1962)). The evidence shows that Woodson told the police that he was "an addict" and he ... ...
- People v. Cage
-
Parker v. Commonwealth
...the place where they were found." Hairston v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 183, 186, 360 S.E.2d 893, 895 (1987) (quoting People v. Pigrenet, 186 N.E.2d 306, 308 (Ill. 1962)). The Court looks to the totality of the circumstances to determine knowledge of the presence and character of a substance......
-
People v. Mills
... ... The fact that the defendant hid the heroin when the police approached strongly suggests that he knew what it was. People v. Pigrenet, 26 Ill.2d 224, 186 N.E.2d 306 ... The defendant argues that 'it is at least just as reasonable to believe that the heroin belonged to a previous passenger as to the appellant.' As we have previously pointed out, the trier of fact could ... have inferred that the defendant, in ... ...